Okay, this is going to be a perilously gushy book review, but I don’t care. I am stoked by Who Hates Whom: Well-Armed Fanatics, Intractable Conflicts, and Various Things Blowing Up A Woefully Incomplete Guide by Bob Harris, who is one of the few people to (partially) make a real name for himself by winning on “Jeopardy!” The book is what it sounds like, a guide to various world conflicts, which sounds initially like it would be in conflict with the skills of a trivia whiz, and then you remember this is a person who knows how to process large and confusing amounts of information for easy recall. That, it turns out, is a major advantage when it comes to writing a quick-and-dirty guidebook to all these bewildering conflicts that you should know about, but because of the bewildering factor, let’s face it, you probably don’t.
Sometimes the pressure to know more about world politics is overwhelming. The U.S. is, after all, the most powerful country in the world and responsible citizens know this means that we have comparatively more responsibility than the rest of the world to actually know about countries and conflicts other than our own. And once you start to research this stuff, you find out that the U.S. has basically acted like a massive bully (of the Mafia sort, not of the childhood bully sort) to the rest of the world, you see that we have a large responsibility indeed to know about the rest of the world, so maybe we can exert influence in stopping our bullying. But despite all this responsibility, Americans have a lot of other conflicting demands on our time, and most of us find it hard to keep up with politics at home, nevermind the rest of the world. This book was written with this dilemma in mind, though of course Harris peppers admonishments to learn more about all these nations and conflicts throughout.
The book is quick and witty and gives you enough backing in the various conflicts that you can now turn on the news and at least understand what the hell they’re talking about. Harris boils down conflicts to the major concepts without insulting the complexity that’s behind them. His secret is to take every side in a conflict seriously, and not give into the urge to divide every conflict into good guys and bad guys. On occasion, I found this mildly hard to take, because I had a predetermined idea of who the good guys were in some conflicts. But Harris is a peace-loving guy, and his fundamental belief that even if you’re right, you should find peaceful means to resolve conflicts, has a lot of sway here.
There’s two themes that emerge from the book. The first is that it’s kind of amazing the rest of the world doesn’t hate us more, because the U.S., especially through the CIA, has managed to stoke the flames of more conflicts around the world than not. Why? Well, to take a page from Harris and to woefully simplify things, it’s because the U.S. has treated our intelligence and military like it’s muscle for the gangsters that are our corporations. We also like to throw some weight around every time a nation gets a little reddish around the edges, or even just decides to use democracy for the purpose of economic justice for all citizens. I mean, we’re not the bad guys in all conflicts, and we were even helpful in Kosovo, but it would be better for everyone but of course our multinational corporations who want to exploit the rest of the world economically if Americans just stayed out of other people’s business. Or at least out of trying to convince them they really don’t want the democratically elected governments they have in the “nice democracy you got there, shame if something happened to it” sense.
As a side benefit, this theme has a side insinuation, which is to be a right winger in the U.S., you either have to be a sociopath or ignorant as shit. As I prefer to think the best of people, I like to think most right wingers are more ignorant than mean. I mean, they’re mean, but in a garden snake way, not a python way, and if they really knew the extent of damage their politics cause, I’d like to think most of them would switch sides. Of course, many probably suspect this, and so as not to cause cognitive dissonance, they avoid learning the truth like the plague. So there’s that problem.
The other theme, which is hard to believe is convincing but it really is, is that The People basically have no real interest in war. Yes, people get caught up in war fever, but even still, to get a population to go to war usually requires cowing them with force somehow, attacking them, or lying to them effectively to convince them that they’re under attack. And even then, people get more pacifist as they age—one reason that hawkish neocons are probably raising the alarm about a graying nation is that reducing the percentage of the population in that critical 18-25 bracket means reducing your country’s will to go kill some other people for the hell of it.
This sort of understanding that most people really don’t want to just kill each other is precisely why Americans can still travel abroad, by the way. Most people understand the difference between a leader and their people and will extend to you the benefit of the doubt. George Bush may be a war-mongering maniac, but that doesn’t mean Joe Blow American is.
But themes and philosophies aside, this book is great reference material. If you turn on the nightly news and they’re reporting some dense conflict that you don’t understand, forget the Wikipedia. Flip to the section of this book—Harris will explain it better. Believe me; I especially found his sections on the various African wars to be much easier to understand than the Wikipedia entries. He’s good at giving you the human side of the conflict—the various claims made by various factions are critical to understanding conflicts, and often left out of most coverage in the interest of being “fair and balanced”. Or sometimes in the interest of not seeming too sympathetic to a side that the U.S. is soon going to fund the enemies of. Like he says repeatedly throughout the book, this is not a comprehensive guide. But it’s a hell of a good start.
Plus, if John McCain had this book, he’d know better than to say that Sunni fundamentalists are being trained in Iran. He would know that’s like saying that German Lutherans were backing the IRA.
21 Responses to “War: Good for writing material”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The other theme, which is hard to believe is convincing but it really is, is that The People basically have no real interest in war.
Would you care to compare Harris’s thesis with Hedge’s “War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning”, or are they not in conflict?
I don’t think they’re in conflict too much. I think it’s a nuanced argument that people, if they really had all the facts before them, would rarely elect to go to war, since it comes into direct conflict with what people get meaning from—home, family, staying alive, work. What happens is that leaders exploit people’s fears mainly (and perhaps the need for meaning) to get them riled up for war. It gives people meaning, I guess, but usually only if there’s a vacuum created by fear.
Harris also argues that the enthusiasm for fighting war is easier to stoke in the young. Maybe the older you get, the more attached you are to other sources of meaning.
Fascinating book review. Am glad someone tackled the issues with human frailty without polarizing. Will check it out.
One small-related side note: I had a professor who was fond of saying (I paraphrase) that war is an economical justification under the pretense of religious righteousness. He said this a lot before the Iraq war broke out.
I don’t know where he may have picked that up, but if the shoe fits…
Yay, Bob! I’ve been reading his blog for a few years now and especially enjoy his travel writing (at BobHarris.com). Funny and perceptive.
My mother used to say that “you can’t keep these things straight without a scorecard”.
At last! A scorecard!
Hmm, I wonder if there are any comparable websites/blogs for those of us who would like some World Conflict 101, but can’t really afford to buy any new books right now.
Does anybody know of any?
Maybe the older you get, the more attached you are to other sources of meaning.
It is noteworthy that 5 years ago, the LA Times had an article about the fact that the group that had the highest level of skepticism about the Iraq war were WWII vets.
And we keep doing it! For instance the 2004 haiti coup:
http://www.google.com/search?q=aristide+site%3Ademocracynow.org
Here is a hilarious send-up of a WW2 FPS that is also a decent send-up of American foreign policy and war itself:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2582-Zero-Punctuation-MOH-Airborne
Good luck getting them to listen. Every hard core Republican (ie is STILL pissed about Bill Clinton) I know refuses to listen when you talk about things like senate testimony about DieBold arranging to tamper with elections (which I can’t find a source for, but I saw it live on CSPAN, damnit), or photos of cut columns from the WTC demolition, they just go “lalalala” and say any stupid shit they can think of to kill the conversation.
Banisteriopsis:
That’s the “many probably suspect this, and so as not to cause cognitive dissonance, they avoid learning the truth like the plague” thing that Amanda mentioned.
I, too, would like to believe that it really is just willful ignorance and that it’s at least theoretically correctable, but I become less and less convinced of that with every passing year. It’s not because of the overt content of what they’re saying, though. The common element I’ve noticed is a deep-seated, pathological inability to even consider the possibility that they might not be the smartest and most perfectly knowledgeable person ever to live (not that this doesn’t show up on the Left, too, but its incidence is overwhelmingly distributed towards the Right, at least in my experience).
This is very true of creationists, especially the rank-and-file drones who just mindlessly repeat whatever the DI tells them to believe, but the self-proclaimed “strict constitutionalists” who are always bloviating about what the framers “intended” (but who avoid providing anything even remotely resembling hard evidence of said “intent” like the plague, natch) are equally guilty of violating the “if you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, your opinion doesn’t count” rule.
Bob also occasionally posts on Tom Tomorrow’s thismodernworld.com.
I was slow in understanding that whole nexus~motivation thing.
It was in being exposed to a bit of the the British East Indies Company’s history of horror that put it more or less together.
For the Brits, of course, then… much of a muchness
across the Commonwealth it seems.
And todays AToL has Chan Ayka’s piece lead thus…
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/JC21Dk01.html
To All:
Amanda Marcotte said:
…”the U.S. has basically acted like a massive bully (of the Mafia sort, not of the childhood bully sort) to the rest of the world,”…
As a veteran of the Marine Corps I have served under Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, an Bush jr. I’ve been to some pretty nasty places around this world: Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Never once, by the ordinary people anyway, was I called a bully or anything of that nature. The ordinary people on the street have thanked me, given me flowers, food, water, and even tried give me things of value such as money and gold jewelry. I’ve had mothers fall at my feet for saving a child; I’ve had police turn to me for advice; I’ve seen entire villages rejoice as we brought food, water and medical supplies to them. Wonder why that never makes the news.
I have been called much worse than bully by those who have trampled children under their feet; I’ve been shot at with everything from rifles to RPGs, (rocket propelled grenades) by revolutionaries, and I’ve been cursed by militiamen for taking their weapons so they couldn’t raid another school or hospital.
All of those things took place before Iraqi Freedom. While I was in Iraq recently I had very similar experiences. If that’s being a mafia bully then you can call me Tony Soprano.
Having said that, war isn’t always the best answer. I didn’t enjoy losing friends or watching them come home with emotional scars, but when diplomatic efforts are no longer working, and sanctions are over looked by our allies like France, Germany and Russia, and dictators like Saddam are left unchecked; sometimes war is the only option.
Some of you will no doubt say what about this place or that one why Iraq and not those others; I say what about France, Germany, Russia, Canada, Italy, and Spain; what are they doing. How much money do those countries spend each year to help other nations around the globe? Why aren’t they helping this country or that? Why are they the first ones to point they’re little european fingers but the last ones to do anything about it.
We have our problems here in the United States. We are definitely not perfect. We have made our fair share of mistakes, and no we don’t have it all together. What we do have are the most incredible mix of people in this world who are willing to do more for a stranger half way around the world than most people living outside this country. We have men an women in the military who make sacrifices everyday so that someone else has a chance at living. This nation spends more money each year than the rest of the G-8 combined on foreign aid.
Please,call me a bully.
Jason (Mr. Soprano)
This nation spends more money each year than the rest of the G-8 combined on foreign aid.
Sadly, no. The US spent $22,863 million in ODA in 2006, the rest of the G-7 spent $51,468 million. As a percentage of GNI, the UK is twice as generous and Norway and Sweden four times as generous - the US was the third least generous, saved by the stinginess of Portugal and Greece.
We have men an women in the military who make sacrifices everyday so that someone else has a chance at living.
Sadly, no. The US ranked 43rd in terms of contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. Its own use of force in invading Iraq, in the words of Kofi Annan was “from the Charter point of view […] illegal”, making it as much “peacekeeping” as Iraq invading Kuwait or the USSR invading Afghanistan.
Since the end of the Second World War, the US has probably killed more people outside its own borders than any other country, since the great Communist massacres have been internal.
What we do have are the most incredible mix of people in this world who are willing to do more for a stranger half way around the world than most people living outside this country.
Sadly, no. Unless by “most people living outside this country”, Jason means Portugal and Greece.
Phoenician said:
Sadly, no. The US spent $22,863 million in ODA in 2006, the rest of the G-7 spent $51,468 million.
How dare we only contribute nearly half, sorry, my mistake.
Phoenician said:
Sadly, no. The US ranked 43rd in terms of contributions to UN peacekeeping missions.
Funny thing about that is, US troops don’t get paid by the UN to do peace keeping; however, Euro, Asian, Russian, Canadian, Australian, African, and every other country that contributes troops to the UN does. They get paid their normal pay as well as by the UN. The US government receives no compensation at all for troops that it sends to participate in UN peace keeping missions, we are there at our own expence.
It’s a good thing you don’t need to be protected by UN troops because they’ll just stand by and watch you die. You see, in most cases they’re not allowed to “help”, their job is to report and engage only in times of self defence.
Phoenician Said:
Sadly, no. Unless by “most people living outside this country”, Jason means Portugal and Greece.
Well, I have to admit, this one would be a tough one for me to prove.
Tony Sop.. I Mean Jason
How dare we only contribute nearly half, sorry, my mistake.
Sadly, no. You contribute only 31% of the G7, which is considerably less than “nearly half”. Further, the US has about 48% of the GNI for the G7 - which means that the rest of the G7 averages about as twice as generous as the US.
Funny thing about that is, US troops don’t get paid by the UN to do peace keeping; however, Euro, Asian, Russian, Canadian, Australian, African, and every other country that contributes troops to the UN does. They get paid their normal pay as well as by the UN.
Sadly, no. They get paid their normal rates by their governments; the governments get compensation from the UN.
The US government receives no compensation at all for troops that it sends to participate in UN peace keeping missions, we are there at our own expence.
Sadly, no. You are compensated for the personnel you contribute to UN peacekeeping missions - as of Feb 2008, all 313 of them.
The rest of your troops are what we like to refer to as “you armed forces” controlled by what we like to refer to as “your government” acting outside your borders in what we like to refer to as “invasions”, “occupations” or “garrisons”.
It’s a good thing you don’t need to be protected by UN troops because they’ll just stand by and watch you die. You see, in most cases they’re not allowed to “help”, their job is to report and engage only in times of self defence.
Sadly, no. Further, UN peacekeeping troops are more cost effective and better at peacekeeping than US forces.
What the US is unparalleled at is killing people - probably the best force ever in the history of the planet. As I have stated, the US has probably killed more people outside its borders than any other country since WWII.
It is a good thing my country does not have significant oil or sit in Central America - otherwise the people from whom I might need saving might well be Americans.
How dare we only contribute nearly half, sorry, my mistake.
Sadly, no. You contribute only 31% of the G7, which is considerably less than “nearly half”. Further, the US has about 48% of the GNI for the G7 - which means that the rest of the G7 averages about as twice as generous as the US.
Funny thing about that is, US troops don’t get paid by the UN to do peace keeping; however, Euro, Asian, Russian, Canadian, Australian, African, and every other country that contributes troops to the UN does. They get paid their normal pay as well as by the UN.
Sadly, no. They get paid their normal rates by their governments; the governments get compensation from the UN.
The US government receives no compensation at all for troops that it sends to participate in UN peace keeping missions, we are there at our own expence.
Sadly, no. You are compensated for the personnel you contribute to UN peacekeeping missions - as of Feb 2008, all 313 of them.
The rest of your troops are what we like to refer to as “you armed forces” controlled by what we like to refer to as “your government” acting outside your borders in what we like to refer to as “invasions”, “occupations” or “garrisons”.
It’s a good thing you don’t need to be protected by UN troops because they’ll just stand by and watch you die. You see, in most cases they’re not allowed to “help”, their job is to report and engage only in times of self defence.
Sadly, no. Further, UN peacekeeping troops are more cost effective and better at peacekeeping than US forces.
What the US is unparalleled at is killing people - probably the best force ever in the history of the planet. As I have stated, the US has probably killed more people outside its borders than any other country since WWII.
It is a good thing my country does not have significant oil or sit in Central America - otherwise the people from whom I might need saving might well be Americans.
“As a veteran of the Marine Corps I have served under Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, an Bush jr…” blah, blah, throwing flowers at our feet, blah blah, dirty fucking hippies, blah blah…
I almost wrote some kind of elaborate response, going through each point Jason coughed up and tearing them down.
And then I realized - I just don’t care. Jason has already been poisoned by the Reichwing Koolaid, so he’s a lost cause.
None of the other wingnuts who stop by and troll Pandagon will pay any attention.
Phoenician did a decent job anyway…
And this thread is almost at retirement age…
Phoenician,
Here is some good UN information for you. The following are links to information about UN troops sexual abuses, you know rape and child molestation. Funny thing is, no US troops were involved.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3145-2004Dec15.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml&page=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6195830.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/02/news/UN-GEN-UN-Haiti-Sexual-Exploitation.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/news/abuse.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml
Oh so saintly UN peacekeepers.
Major contributors to the UN budget for 2006/2007:
U.S. 22%, Japan 19.47%, Germany 8.66%, U.K. 6.13%, France 6.03%, Italy 4.89%, Canada 2.81%, Spain 2.52%, China 2.05%, Mexico 1.88%, Austrlia 1.59%, Brazil 1.52%.
UN peacekeepers are very effective:
UN Peace Keepers don’t stop genocide in Rwanda because Security council won’t approve military action, result; nearly 1,000,000 die.
Despite having just over 16,000 UN troops on the ground approximately 5,000,000 people die in the 2nd Congo War.
UN declares Srebrenica a “Safe Haven”. In 1995 8,000 men and boys are massacred because Security Council doesn’t authorize use of force. Srebrenica was being “protected” by 600 Dutch peace keepers. Srebrenica is in Bosnia.
Famine in Somalia; UN attempts to distribute much needed food and medicine in Somalia. These resources are seized by local warlords. UN peace keepers may use force only in self-defense. Estimated 3-400,000 Somalis die from starvation. US sends troops, food shipments secured and distributed.
Phoenician Said:…”the US has probably killed more people outside its borders than any other country since WWII.”
You may be right on that one. I guess it’s not so bad when countries use their own militaries to kill their own people, you know, as long as they don’t do it outside there borders.
Jason